Dear Boris, Enough is enough!

We already have the legal situation where you can proceed on an flashing amber if the road is clear. If cyclists were legally allowed to treat every red light as a flashing amber...

I can't say I agree with this approach. Away from traffic lights I like the legal status of a vehicle with equal rights. A special legal treatment for cyclists undermines this principle and feeds the Daily Mail mentality. What is needed is a format of road structure and associated laws that puts all road users on an comprehensible equal footing regardless of the type of vehicle they use. If that format then favours use of a bicycle then all the better.

As an aside, I am a tediously law abiding cyclist and rarely ever jump red lights, but then I live in a very different environment where the impetus to jump red lights is severely diminished so such a law is far less relevant to me as I live outside of a major urban area.

The tribute to James Foster has now been removed....Mosquito has turned into a nameless bike shop and they've taken it away

There has been a big increase in the number of traffic lights recently. Lots of zebra crossings turned into pelicans, lots of normal junctions unnecessarily controlled by lights.

Thinking about this further, this is my suggestion for what should be included in such as campaign, or letter to Boris and other MPs.

1)A full unbiased and independant K&SI enquiry on reported cycle incidents in London similar to the 2001 Toronto Coroners Enquiry of the same nature to provide a clear and accurate assessment on the causes of accidents, the handling and investigation by police and reccomendations on prevantative measures.
2) A full overhaul of road design policy to clearly and reasonably favour cycling as a mode of transport. This overhaul should include open consultation with cycling communities and be implemented. as mandatory in all London boroughs for all new developments and redevelopments.
3) A programme of subsidised, low cost driver training in cycle awareness for all HGV drivers with an associated incentive.
4) A programme of subsidised, low cost road cycling training for all London residents.
5) A restriction on HGV traffic in London at rush hour times (0700 - 0930 & 1530 - 1900).
6) Immediate implementation of increased safety standard on all HGVs allowed into London.
7) A permanent and updateable memorial to cyclists killed in London traffic regardless of circumstances.

[quote=The Seldom Killer;787771]I can't say I agree with this approach. Away from traffic lights I like the legal status of a vehicle with equal rights. A special legal treatment for cyclists undermines this principle and feeds the Daily Mail mentality. What is needed is a format of road structure and associated laws that puts all road users on an comprehensible equal footing regardless of the type of vehicle they use. If that format then favours use of a bicycle then all the better. [quote]

RLJing is a contentious issue, some I jump, others I don't depending on the intersection (blind corners, congestion etc)

Equal footing be ok in a world where us cyclists were as heavy as and as fast as motorised traffic. A 35 ton truck is not the same as a 12kg bicycle. I firmly believe that the most vulnerable road users need to be protected via a range of measures from the dangers that the least vulnerable and heaviest road users present. I don't see how you can have equal footing and then favour the bicycle. What is needed is a few separate laws to protect the cyclists and pedestrians. The whole point of having laws in the first place is to protect people from wrongdoing. There are already specific laws to various modes of transport. You need a HGV license to drive a HGV for instance. I say fuck the daily mail mentality, if someone wants to think that way then goodluck to em. We have a right to be on the roads and not be intimidated by these fascist idiots. Once the laws get changed they'll be forced to concede and eventually it'll become second nature.

Somewhere on here I saw I think Smallfurry talking about the laws in Norway, +1, bring it on. It's a good way us cyclists can get our foot in the door, so to speak, and may make many motorists think twice on that risky manouvre.

I see a big transition period happening at the moment in this country with general attitudes towards cycling and with successful campaigning, laws, facilities, training and road design it can be changed for the better, maybe inside 15 years. But it ain't gonna be all Holland overnight.

edit: I agree with all points 1 to 7 above.

I say fuck the daily mail mentality, if someone wants to think that way then goodluck to em. We have a right to be on the roads and not be intimidated by these fascist idiots. Once the laws get changed they'll be forced to concede and eventually it'll become second nature.

If only this were true.

Alas, much to my chagrin, Daily Mail readers are afforded equal rights as constituents to the politicians that create and legislate the laws that we live by. They won't have to concede anything, they can just vote in people who will change the laws back. If you say fuck them then they'll vote against your propositions. In politics and the law the only people that you can fuck off is an absolute minority and in this situation, that would be us.

+1

it's all about the attitudes of drivers towards cyclists. it needs to change.

[quote=The Seldom Killer;787771]Equal footing be ok in a world where us cyclists were as heavy as and as fast as motorised traffic. A 35 ton truck is not the same as a 12kg bicycle. I firmly believe that the most vulnerable road users need to be protected via a range of measures from the dangers that the least vulnerable and heaviest road users present. I don't see how you can have equal footing and then favour the bicycle.

I disagree, I don't think that you have to be the same weight and speed as another vehicle to be equal on the road.

Examples already exist that have us on an equal footing with other vehicles that favour bicycles. One of which is the design of near 90 degree corners on intersections. Without a sweeping curve, motorised vehicles can't take the corner at a high speed, on the other hand a bicycle can come out wide to take the corner without losing much of their initial momentum. We both have the same rules in what we are expected to do at that corner but the bicycle is favoured because of it's enhanced manouverability.

An example of rules that favour the bicycle are things like width restrictions on residential roads. They eliminate heavy commercial traffic, automatically creating a more conduicive cycling environment.

Individual rules and measures may not appear, on face value, to afford great favour to cyclists but as part of a holistic approach you get a transport model that does without preventing necessary motor travel.

+1

it's all about the attitudes of drivers towards cyclists. it needs to change.

Absolutely. But it's how you go about doing that. Rant and rage at them and slap them with legislation and they'll do exactly what we would, they'd revolt. It's a model that almost never works.

this is a quote from the London Paper, when they had a poll asking if Boris should spend 11m on cycling:

"as a motorist i find cyclists to be troublesome at best and at worst they are downright dangerous.
the road is for CARS! get off out of it!"

I would be tempted to suggest legislation that means that part of the driving test would have new drivers recite, wedding vow style, a plain english version of that part of the Road Traffic Act that affords bicycles equal rights and responsibilities. There after all media organisations in the UK must, by law, print that material next to any articles that mentions cycling in any shape form or fashion in an publication intended for sale in the UK. Exemptions would apply to cycling magazines who would need only print it once on the index page so that subscribers could wave it in the face of such arrogant twats with ease.

If only this were true.

Alas, much to my chagrin, Daily Mail readers are afforded equal rights as constituents to the politicians that create and legislate the laws that we live by. They won't have to concede anything, they can just vote in people who will change the laws back. If you say fuck them then they'll vote against your propositions. In politics and the law the only people that you can fuck off is an absolute minority and in this situation, that would be us.

Maybe so, but when did you last vote on one specific law? Once laws are implemented, they are rarely repealed. Yes, Daily Heil readers are afforded equal rights, as they should be. However, these should not trump the need to protect the most vulnerable road users. We as cyclists may be a minority, but a rapidly growing minority. Ignore us at your peril. Even BoJo, a tory who probably reads the daily mail appears to be on the side of the cyclists. The government is looking for ways to decrease traffic & public transport congestion, get people active, reduce pollution and go "green" as it were. Cycling presents at least a partial solution and the government knows that - cycle to work scheme for example. The odds for change are better than they have ever been, and it would be silly to not take the opportunity. Strike while the iron's hot and all that. We will get nothing of value if we don't big up the cause just because someone might not like what we are doing. Organisations like Greenpeace would be nowhere near what they are today without the pioneers sticking to their guns and principles.

Absolutely. But it's how you go about doing that. Rant and rage at them and slap them with legislation and they'll do exactly what we would, they'd revolt. It's a model that almost never works.

Motorists hate speed cameras. They are everywhere. A few laws toughing up penalties for hitting cyclists and pedestrians and maybe a right of way type legislation liek in Norway? Hardly a real inconvenience is it? Only if you're in the wrong. I really don't see this as such a massive hurdle.

this is a quote from the London Paper, when they had a poll asking if Boris should spend 11m on cycling:

"as a motorist i find cyclists to be troublesome at best and at worst they are downright dangerous.
the road is for CARS! get off out of it!"

I find car drivers toublesome and downright dangerous. Cyclists are only dangerous to themselves an maybe a pedestrian. It is exactly this kind of attitude that we must fight, you can't reason with a fascist.

Motorists hate speed cameras. They are everywhere. A few laws toughing up penalties for hitting cyclists and pedestrians and maybe a right of way type legislation liek in Norway? Hardly a real inconvenience is it? Only if you're in the wrong. I really don't see this as such a massive hurdle.

True, but remember that all the speed cameras in the country didn't appear over night. It was a gradual rise and we are now seeing the backlash of this with councils like Swindon actually decommissioning all of them. On top of that, there was always the perception that speeders were a problem. Now, with a common perception that cyclists are the ones being unsafe, a move to legislate against motorists even more isn't as comparable.

I hate to say it, but if there were permanent memorials to everyone who's ever died on the streets of London it would become a morbid place rather than a living city. Memorials get taken down; we move on. Harsh, but inevitable, and healthy.

I mean the memorial should be in one place somewhere, it would be affecting but don't agree that it would be morbid.

a lot of wishful thinking here i think. if we really want to change something, we should set our sights a lot lower.

to those looking the scandinavian model - remember they have far smaller, less industrious, less populated countries than we do. % trips made by bike is a lot higher there too.

True, but remember that all the speed cameras in the country didn't appear over night. It was a gradual rise and we are now seeing the backlash of this with councils like Swindon actually decommissioning all of them. On top of that, there was always the perception that speeders were a problem. Now, with a common perception that cyclists are the ones being unsafe, a move to legislate against motorists even more isn't as comparable.

I do see your point and how to deal with the arrogant driver attitude is probably the toughest thing in the line up of things to deal with concerning cycling safety. Maybe a gradual legislative approach would work? I guess there's no instant solution.

Time is key, I suppose if cycling is bigg'd up enough with all of the above (1-7) and the numbers rise to massive levels then the attitude will change by itself.

% trips made by bike is a lot higher there too.

Because they have adequate facilities and laws to protect the cyclists. All we need is something similar.

prompts the question: who pays the fines incurred by a commercially employed HGV driver?

I agree that increasing fines would have some impact with personal vehicle users, but will local government/public services fine themselves? Will the police issue a £1000 fine to a council recycling lorry driver, only for it to be paid by the council? Given that the police's track record on investigating themselves, I'm not holding out high hopes...

Similarly, if a HGV driver is delivering food for Tesco, would such 'expenses' be charged to the company or come directly out of the driver's pay? If the former, any personal incentive to change is undercut.

Generally drivers are responsible for their own fines. If the company paid, and the traffic commissioners found out, then the company's operator licence could be at risk. If the vehicle is not up to standard then the company can be prosecuted for the state of the vehicle and the driver prosecuted for driving it.
Many of the lorries in London are run by owner drivers, contracting to waste or concrete companies, they pay their own fines.
Some drivers will have legal expenses insurance paid for by their employer or union, this insurance will pay for a specialist barrister able to get them off or get a reduced penalty.

Thinking about this further, this is my suggestion for what should be included in such as campaign, or letter to Boris and other MPs.

1)A full unbiased and independant K&SI enquiry on reported cycle incidents in London similar to the 2001 Toronto Coroners Enquiry of the same nature to provide a clear and accurate assessment on the causes of accidents, the handling and investigation by police and reccomendations on prevantative measures.
2) A full overhaul of road design policy to clearly and reasonably favour cycling as a mode of transport. This overhaul should include open consultation with cycling communities and be implemented. as mandatory in all London boroughs for all new developments and redevelopments.
3) A programme of subsidised, low cost driver training in cycle awareness for all HGV drivers with an associated incentive.
4) A programme of subsidised, low cost road cycling training for all London residents.
5) A restriction on HGV traffic in London at rush hour times (0700 - 0930 & 1530 - 1900).
6) Immediate implementation of increased safety standard on all HGVs allowed into London.
7) A permanent and updateable memorial to cyclists killed in London traffic regardless of circumstances.

Maybe this is something we could lobby Boris about; an independent, expert led enquiry or investigation, funded by the Major's office, into how to improve the safety of cyclists on London streets (junction design, traffic flow control, traffic rules etc etc).

Surely there could be lessons from other cities; didn't the BBC suggest London should be more like Bogatoa or something the other day?

That was about the weekly shut down of the centre of Bogata from traffic on a Sunday for fitness reasons. Not something worth suggesting in London as it is a rather different kind of city without a single central focus and a wholly different culture which wouldn't allow this.

^^ ok, yeah that wouldn't work.

But surely there could be other leasons to be learned from other cities.

So I was having a think about the spokecard stuff and everything I read on this thread, and those stickers you see on the backs of some trucks, and figured why doesn't somebody combine the two and make stickers that can be stuck guerilla-style on the backs of trucks/lamposts/wherever that are distributed or kept as spokecards. I don't know anything about printing stickers and stuff, so don't really know how feasible it is and I know it's pretty small-scale and probably won't do much in the long-term, but it might make just one more person think twice about undertaking an HGV.
Sorry if this idea has already been covered
Edit: forgot to add that they could have some info on the reverse side, some statistics or an explanation or something?

I've made a kind of draft design (which is pretty rubbish)

Thoughts?

@ elmolux - nice idea.